This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Converting is not an issue; it's how you live that is important. However, I would never call myself an atheist. That would be a bit like going for a drive in my steering wheel. Yep, the steering wheel is a part, but it's the car I go driving in. Similarly, atheism is part of my philosophy, but the rest, and how I live are far more important.

"Anti-theism", for me at least, does seem to have a bit of a problem when held up against my interpretation of Humanism. I find it difficult to reconcile The Golden Rule, said by some to be essential to the true humanist, with active "anti-theism" at least.

"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."Me, 2015

By anti-theist, do you mean secularist or a stronger opposition to religion?

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

I've never really understood the need to have a title for what you believe or don't believe. I simply don't believe in anything supernatural.

However, one thing I like about Humanism is a description of what Humanists believe in: compassion, ethics, science, and nature. That sums it up for me. I don't over think it.

Laugh often/love much;leave the world a bit better whether by a healthy child,a garden patch,or a redeemed social condition;play w/enthusiasm & sing w/exultation;know even 1 life has breathed easier because you lived. This is success.B.A.Stanley

I struggle to label myself, I am an anti theist, I am also a humanist and a secularist, to choose one would be very difficult, unlike Carja I do label myself but also like Carja I do like the humanist stance of compassion, ethics and science, but struggle to balance that with the desire to mock and ridicule religious belief, it is why I can't pin down a label for myself. I will of course consider myself a secularist because it is absolutely the only way to a healthy society.

sanctimoniousˌsaŋ(k)tɪˈməʊnɪəs/Submitadjectivederogatory1.making a show of being morally superior to other people.

draykorineeI am an anti theist, I am also a humanist and a secularist, to choose one would be very difficult,

I too would apply those three labels to myself, I don't see any problem with that, one can be all three as neither one negates either of the other two.

Yes I agree, I battled before with being an anthi theist and whether that was counter to being a humanist, but further reading enabled me to realise that its not, I had misconstrued some ambiguity with the definition of humanism. I do however battle constantly with being an anti theist and the 'bigot' retort I get from the other side.

sanctimoniousˌsaŋ(k)tɪˈməʊnɪəs/Submitadjectivederogatory1.making a show of being morally superior to other people.

I have found that it helps to separate the religious institutions from the 'faithful'. As a secular Humanist I have no problem with religion bashing. Although we know they get awful upset if we demand they are out of the public sphere, we also know how excellent they are at brainwashing folk from a very early age, particularly in a strongly religious cultural environment. So I never battle with individuals who have either unquestioningly accepted or chosen their own path. But I reserve the right at every opportunity to prick the complacency and expose the shallow power of the institutions.

Having just written that I guess that's where the secular comes from in my Humanism

I am happy that others should follow whatever faith or belief suits their needs. But when they try to impose that on others, in any way - including shouting their heads off at street corners - then I begin to lose my normal tolerance with them! I certainly think that religious organisations should be treated no differently from any other charity.

"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."Me, 2015

Dave B wrote:I certainly think that religious organisations should be treated no differently from any other charity.

Dave, religions as such are not charities, surely, but ideologies

Lots of terms are being bandied around here, as ever. I don't like the term "humanist" as I don't really know, despite all the words, what it means. "Secularist" and "atheist" are good terms, but different, since one can be a theistic secularist. "Anti-theist" - this could mean antagonism towards God, which I feel a lot of the time, whereas I am not necessarily against religious belief, if it makes people feel better

Dave B wrote:I certainly think that religious organisations should be treated no differently from any other charity.

Dave, religions as such are not charities, surely, but ideologies

Lots of terms are being bandied around here, as ever. I don't like the term "humanist" as I don't really know, despite all the words, what it means. "Secularist" and "atheist" are good terms, but different, since one can be a theistic secularist. "Anti-theist" - this could mean antagonism towards God, which I feel a lot of the time, whereas I am not necessarily against religious belief, if it makes people feel better

Not charities in fact I agree but they share a lot in common and should be treated as such.

"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."Me, 2015

Dave B wrote:Not charities in fact I agree but they share a lot in common and should be treated as such.

The fact they exist on the the backs of childhood indoctrination and scaremongering for compliance just makes me question whether this is true, I don't view religions as sharing a whole lot with charities, there are charities whos foundations are in the churches/mosques, the red cross/crescent etc, but these can exist outside of religion, it is not the religion that makes them charitable.

And yes Churches are the only institutions than can be openly discriminatory that receives charitable benefits, just as their schools are the only state funded schools that can be openly discriminatory.

sanctimoniousˌsaŋ(k)tɪˈməʊnɪəs/Submitadjectivederogatory1.making a show of being morally superior to other people.

draykorinee wrote: ....there are charities whos foundations are in the churches/mosques, the red cross/crescent etc, but these can exist outside of religion, it is not the religion that makes them charitable.

Just a small point: I think the Red Cross's red cross was based on (an invertion of) the Swiss Flag, not on a notion of Christian charity, as such. Of course, that did not fail to upset the Muslims, who thought otherwise, hence the Red Crescent.

draykorinee wrote: ....there are charities whos foundations are in the churches/mosques, the red cross/crescent etc, but these can exist outside of religion, it is not the religion that makes them charitable.

Just a small point: I think the Red Cross's red cross was based on (an invertion of) the Swiss Flag, not on a notion of Christian charity, as such. Of course, that did not fail to upset the Muslims, who thought otherwise, hence the Red Crescent.

Well thanks for that, i had a good read on the red cross and yes you're right, formed in Switzerland hence the cross, good to know.

sanctimoniousˌsaŋ(k)tɪˈməʊnɪəs/Submitadjectivederogatory1.making a show of being morally superior to other people.